Share this:

Some people think Senate fights over Supreme Court nominations began with the rejection of Judge Robert Bork, shown being sworn in Sept. 15, 1987 for his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Far from it. (Photo by John Duricka/Associated Press)

Neil Gorsuch is now a justice on the Supreme Court, something that was inevitable all along. With 52 Republican Senators, there was nothing Democrats could do to stop this.

But Democratic Senators felt it was essential tostrongly express their opposition. Democrats regard this as a stolen seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland, and are angry to see a staunch conservative replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

I worry that some of the wrong lessons have been drawn from the fights over Garland and Gorsuch. Indeed, some false myths have emerged that could affect the confirmation process for future vacancies on the Supreme Court.

• Myth 1: Confirmation fights began with the defeat of the nomination of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. This is simply false.

Confirmation fights began during George Washington’s presidency. In 1789, Washington nominated, and the Senate approved, John Rutledge to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. In 1791, Rutledge resigned from the court, without ever having heard a case, to remain in his home state as chief justice of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and Sessions.

In 1795, John Jay, the first U.S. chief justice, resigned and Washington made a recess appointment of Rutledge to be the new chief justice. After his nomination, but before his confirmation by the Senate, Rutledge gave a highly controversial speech denouncing the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. He reportedly said in the speech “that he had rather the president should die than sign that puerile instrument” — and that he “preferred war to an adoption of it.”This angered the Washington administration that favored the treaty and the Senate that ultimately approved it. The Senate, by a vote of 14-10, denied Rutledge’s confirmation to be Chief Justice.

In the 19th century, about 20 percent of presidential nominations for the Supreme Court were denied confirmation, usually based on ideological disagreements. In the 1840s, President John Tyler was particularly unsuccessful: He made four nominations for the Supreme Court and none was confirmed. In the 20th century, too, there were many instances of Senate rejections of nominees, including President Herbert Hoover’s nomination of Judge John Parker, President Richard Nixon’s picks of Judge Clement Haynsworth and Judge Harold Carswell, and President Ronald Reagan’s selection of Bork.

The key lesson is that confirmation fights succeed when the Senate and the president are from different political parties.

• Myth 2: Confirmation fights unduly politicize the Supreme Court.

The key democratic check on the court, an unelected body whose members have life tenure, is the nomination and confirmation process. Every president has picked justices based on ideology. Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan picked justices who had clear ideological orientations. By contrast, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who was not particularly ideological, nominated a Democrat, William Brennan, who was one of the most liberal justices in American history.

Just as it is appropriate for the president to consider an individual’s ideology, so is it justified and even essential that the Senate do so as well. Ajustice’s values and views will be crucial in how he or she votes once on the court. The Constitution is written in ambiguous language, and it is a justice’s views that determine what he or she sees as “cruel and unusual punishment” or a denial of “due process of law.” Constitutional cases almost always involve balancing competing interests and there is no way to balance without making value choices.

The court is not “political” in many senses of the word. No one lobbies Supreme Court justices. There is not vote trading among the justices. But the court is political in the sense that the ideology of the justices matters, and that is why presidents and senators are completely justified in considering it.

• Myth 3: The elimination of the filibuster will lead to the appointment of more extreme Supreme Court justices.

Last Friday, Senate Republicans changed the Senate’s rules to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. I heard many commentators say this will lead to presidents making more extreme nominations to the court, since the minority party is powerless to block confirmations.

The reality is that filibusters never have mattered with regard to Supreme Court nominations. There were 48 votes against Clarence Thomas’ confirmation and 42 against Samuel Alito. There could have been a filibuster in each instance, but none occurred. Until last week, there never had been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination.

Presidents already often pick individuals with strong ideological orientations. Would President George H.W. Bush have nominated someone more conservative than Thomas or would President Bill Clinton have nominated someone more liberal than Ruth Bader Ginsburg if there had been no possibility of filibusters? Eliminating the filibuster really changes nothing.

In all likelihood, President Trump will get another pick or two for the Supreme Court. Ginsburg is 84 and Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer will turn 81 and 79, respectively. If any resign in the next few years, expect an even more intense confirmation fight than occurred over Neil Gorsuch.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.